football commercial that never aired

[f3rr3+]

i think its good to be aired whenever just to try and let the people who probably have no idea whats happening in our countrys gov. know whats going on

[shartley]

Originally posted by spantol


Technically, it would be libel. When it's spoken, it's slander. Realistically, what is so damned offensive on that site? Please, give me an example. I hear more inflammatory things on FNC every night.

Originally posted by spantol
Context can be a wonderful thing. I never claimed the intentions of the two sites were at all similar. I intended to point out that both sites have clear agendas--Bush's to support his re-election, and moveon.org's to serve as a populist (though left-leaning) watchdog. Expecting either to act contrary to that agenda is foolish.

and

Originally posted by Dryden
That is the precise point! They DO air political commercials!

I misstated in my earlier post RE: Ross Perot's infomercials, it was 1992, not 1988. Anyhow, Perot was alloted time on the national networks to express his opinions, which CBS, NBC, and ABC held for ransom at very high premiums as they had to surrender their most valuable prime time slots.

You are correct, neither you nor I could "walk on" to a set and demand air time, as the national networks do have a right to profitability to remain viable. However, if you or I purchased air time, the national networks could air such content, and might even be forced to by the FCC, as happended to CBS and NBC in 1996 when they would only sell Ross Perot time slots outside of the prime time viewing hours.

[Southpaw]

So are all of the people that think they unfairly didnt show this ad think there should have been pro tobacco ads on tv?

[spantol]

Originally posted by shartley

What is offensive is that the information is not a true representation of things. It is offensive to anyone who looks at the realities of government or what happens. Also on FNC they have both sides (even if slanted heavier in one direction than another?. Both sides are provided in a face to face.).

This site and its attacks are not that way.

So nothing specific, then? You're just miffed that an organization with a stated agenda doesn't act contrary to that agenda. By extension, I would assume that the fact that PETA's website fails to mention that meat is tasty rubs you in a similar way.

Me:
Context can be a wonderful thing. I never claimed the intentions of the two sites were at all similar. I intended to point out that both sites have clear agendas--Bush's to support his re-election, and moveon.org's to serve as a populist (though left-leaning) watchdog. Expecting either to act contrary to that agenda is foolish.

Shartley:
Again, if you can?t tell the difference between the following examples, I can not help you?

?I am a great guy. I do wonderful things.?
and
?He is a jerk. He does horrible things.?

One is an attack, while the other is not? if you could not figure it out. So no, just being one sided does NOT make things the same. No more so than a car and a jet are the same simply because they both have wheels.

Again, that wasn't my point. Again, context is a wonderful thing. You are attacking something far outside the scope of my claim. I claimed that both present only one side of a set of issues, and that it would be naive to expect anything otherwise, given their respective scopes.

To run with your metaphor, while it's true that a car and a jet don't have much in common besides having wheels, we're essentially talking about things that have wheels. Pointing out that other differences exist is outside the scope of the discussion.

In short, if you can't tell the difference between a specific point being made and a complete tangent, I can't help you.

[shartley]

Originally posted by spantol
[B]

So nothing specific, then? You're just miffed that an organization with a stated agenda doesn't act contrary to that agenda. By extension, I would assume that the fact that PETA's website fails to mention that meat is tasty rubs you in a similar way.

[b]


Again, that wasn't my point. Again, context is a wonderful thing. You are attacking something far outside the scope of my claim. I claimed that both present only one side of a set of issues, and that it would be naive to expect anything otherwise, given their respective scopes.

To run with your metaphor, while it's true that a car and a jet don't have much in common besides having wheels, we're essentially talking about things that have wheels. Pointing out that other differences exist is outside the scope of the discussion.

In short, if you can't tell the difference between a specific point being made and a complete tangent, I can't help you.

[Rather]

Eesh...now I know where all of the non CBS poop-Series comercials went to.......

[sgt_easton]

This seems like a fairly simple issue to me.

CBS is a company. It will do what it wants to do, as long as it is within the law. There is nothing written that says CBS has to air a commercial. Report news fairly, yes. But this is NOT news. This is a one-sided commerical.

If you don't like what is on CBS, don't watch it.

If you want to see something aired on TV that isn't being aired, maybe you should start your own TV network. I hear channel 1 is free.

Well, channel 1 isn't <i>really</i> free, but it worked in the post.

I'm suprised that no one is talking about the PETA ad. As for me, I think that organization should be on the list of known terrorist groups.

[Southpaw]

Funny thing about petas ads Al-Jazeera will not run them either LINK

[bleachit]

"Funny thing about petas ads Al-Jazeera wont run them either"
to quote Jerry Seinfeld "thats a shame".. but not really

"I think we have another CB!"
and thats just scary.

[bleachit]

from the link about PETA

According to the AP, "[the ad] features cattle hanging upside down in a slaughterhouse, goats being killed and a chicken being thrown violently at a box."

seems kinda hypocritical to show a bunch of dead animals in a commercial from PETA. I knew there was something that just wasnt right about them

[spantol]

Shartley:

One last try here: Butterfingers claimed that Moveon.org's website made him sick. I sought to point out that MoveOn.org has a very clear agenda--one strongly anti-Bush, and that there was no reason to expect a balanced portrayal. I sought to demonstrate this by pointing to another site with a clear agenda--Bush's own re-election site. Just as one should not expect to find Pro-Bush things on an Anti-Bush website, one should not expect to find Anti-Bush things on a Pro-Bush site. This is the only point I've tried to make here.

You have argued, apparently, that this doesn't matter, because the sites have different messages. I don't see how that relates--at all--to my claims, and I guess I'll never know, since you refuse to "debate" me.

I'm not here to argue. I wanted to make one simple point--that there's no reason to expect a balanced portrayal of an issue from a website with a specific agenda. In your trademark fashion, you've gone off on a tangent with arguments based primarily on strawmen propositions and ad hominem attacks. If this is your idea of a debate, count me out.

Originally posted by shartley

I think we have another CB!

You very eloquently make statements so vague that you don?t have to argue anything of substance. It also allows you to back out of any relevant arguments by pointing out that you didn?t really mean what others are saying you are. And you can toss in any reference to something published, whether it actually pertains to the issue at hand or not? because when pointed out that is does NOT, you can go back to a ?specific statement? argument. In essence you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing, not for the debating of a genuine issue.

I refuse(d) to debate like this with CB, and I refuse to do so with you. When you want to take a stand and not just toss out weak generalizations, just so you can argue that what others are saying is not what YOU said, we can talk?. Until then, not only can?t I help you, but I refuse to even try.

Oh? and no, I have MAJOR problems with both PITA and their site? but for other reasons.

[Rooster]

"Uhhh... Watch FOX if you want to see something biased. Think of how many more people watch right wing propaganda on TV than see that website."

LOL! Only a liberal so ingrained into their own naive little world would think that Fox News is right wing. Nice try, but not quite.

[Kai]

Spantol, there's no getting through. Just walk away.

[shartley]

Originally posted by spantol
Shartley:

One last try here: Butterfingers claimed that Moveon.org's website made him sick. I sought to point out that MoveOn.org has a very clear agenda--one strongly anti-Bush, and that there was no reason to expect a balanced portrayal. I sought to demonstrate this by pointing to another site with a clear agenda--Bush's own re-election site. Just as one should not expect to find Pro-Bush things on an Anti-Bush website, one should not expect to find Anti-Bush things on a Pro-Bush site. This is the only point I've tried to make here.

You have argued, apparently, that this doesn't matter, because the sites have different messages. I don't see how that relates--at all--to my claims, and I guess I'll never know, since you refuse to "debate" me.

I'm not here to argue. I wanted to make one simple point--that there's no reason to expect a balanced portrayal of an issue from a website with a specific agenda. In your trademark fashion, you've gone off on a tangent with arguments based primarily on strawmen propositions and ad hominem attacks. If this is your idea of a debate, count me out.

[Zygote]

Sorry for my characteristic strawmen propositions and ad homonym attacks, the $10 word book I seal my defenses and counter arguments from was missing from my shelf…. I think I found where it went though. So please return it.

You don't have to spend money on $10 word books if you pay attention during the boring rhetoric and research classes during high school where most of us learn how to see through logical fallacies.